it is hard to deny the sweet, sweet justice of Republicans being politically damaged by a lurid sex scandal in Washington.

-- Glenn Greenwald.

The problem with politics is that watching these things happen is as predictable as it is frustrating (especially if you've seen it coming).

Glenn Reynolds also links Gateway Pundit's speculations about why Michael Rogers and John Aravosis -- both specialists in that noxious invasion of privacy called "outing" -- kept so quiet for so long about Congressman Foley's penchant for male teenage pages:

Radical Gay Rights Activists held on to information about Representative Foley for months and years. These "Rights Activists" knew that representative Foley had relationships with "young men less than half his age." They did their own investigation on Foley. They even flew in their sources in to be interviewed about the Representative. They shared this information with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. They held on to the information for over a year. They wrote about how they would break the story at midterm elections.

But, the radical gay activists and democrats never thought about the safety of the teens who were at risk!

As Gateway Pundit says, it's not as if their agenda wasn't made clear over a year ago:

Everyone already knows Foley's a self hating closet case. When we get closer to the mid-term elections, I am sure more will surface.

Sullivan devotes a great deal of time disagreeing with Hillary's position.

Does that mean that Andrew Sullivan would also be a self-loathing hypocrite were he to oppose Hillary Clinton? Somehow, I doubt it.

There's also the issue of gay Republicans. There is much ferocious opposition to the very idea of such a thing, and while some of it comes from moral conservatives in the Republican Party, they're not as shrill as the Democrats. Bill Clinton is hardly from the Democratic Party fringe, either. There is a general consensus that any homosexual in the Republican Party is the equivalent of a gay Uncle Tom, and guilty of self hatred, because since all Republicans hate homosexuals, any Republican who is a homosexual must hate himself.

Bush hates homosexuals, while Clinton loves them!

Bush is the fake president, while Clinton is "the REAL president." And here's the real president with a real admirer (who seems to have forgiven him for supporting the Defense of Marriage Act):

Good job well done!

All homosexuals who support Republicans are not only guilty of supporting a fake president, but by definition they're guilty of self hatred for doing so.

They're also in the closet whether they know it or not, and people who are in the closet either molest children or contribute to a loathsome climate where it will occur. "Sex with children" fits right in with the self loathing meme, which dovetails nicely into what I consider a central goal here: to reinvigorate anti-homosexual animosity within the Republican Party.

Not that it matters whether there has in fact been sex with children. Here's Reason's Kerry Howley:

...as it turns out, the Mark Foley pedophilia sex scandal lacks two things: pedophilia and sex. (Emphasis added).

But emotion stoked by demagoguery can supply pedophilia which isn't there, as well as sex which isn't there. Character assassination leveraged by identity politics is a powerful combination -- especially when antigay forces can be manipulated into working in collusion. I think Aravosis and company are, whether they admit it or not, working with the anti-gay crowd in what ought to be called "Operation Pink Triangulation."

Outing gay Republicans has historically been shown to be ineffective. But this stuff works, and they couldn't be happier. (And there's even a hidden, unstated message -- sex with teens is OK if you're a loyal Democrat. Or someone who does their bidding.)

Thus, the Foley scandal does what ordinary "outing" could not have possibly done. It emboldens those in the GOP for whom homo-loathing is a bread-and-butter issue, and if things go the way the activists want, maybe some of them will call for witch hunts. (According to the predictable meme of restoring morality or something.)

That'll teach the cowards in the closet who their friends are!

Whenever two apparent adversaries agree with each other, it worries me. Right now, I see agreement along the following lines:

RESOLVED: Gays do not belong in the Republican Party.

But there's still hope for these people who hate themselves. If they convert now, it's not too late.

Why, the libertarian apostates will welcome them with open arms! (Aren't they forgetting that former leftists who become libertarians are already apostates?)

Such condescension is a bit hard to take.

In my view, identity politics -- especially the "self hatred" meme in conjunction with "outing" -- makes non-conforming gay citizens afraid to voice what they think.

That's a first step towards not being allowed to think what they think.

MORE: Please bear in mind that when I refer to the bread-and-butter antigay crowd I am not talking about people who oppose same sex marriage, or even those who have political or religious disagreements with homosexuality. I'm talking about the angry Peter La Barbera types who run web sites like Americans for Truth, and people who think that Western civilization itself is threatened by things like Brokeback Mountain.

AND MORE: I should probably point out the obvious -- that I don't especially want Bill Clinton and his wife back in the White House. I realize that many Americans feel otherwise, and will work for what they believe in. But such political beliefs are not "self hatred." To say that they merely perpetuates endless cycles of what was originally called the "politics of personal destruction."

UPDATE: Drudge links to David Corn's post about a thing called "The List":

what an unidentified House GOPer called a "network of gay staffers and gay members who protect each other and did the Speaker a disservice." The implication is that these gay Republicans somehow helped page-pursuing Mark Foley before his ugly (and possibly illegal) conduct was exposed. The List--drawn up by gay politicos--is a partial accounting of who on Capitol Hill might be in that network.

[...]

anytime a gay Republican is outed by events, a dicey issue is raised: what about those GOPers who are gay and who serve a party that is anti-gay? Are they hypocrites, opportunists, or just confused individuals? Is it possible to support a party because you adhere to most of its tenets--even if that party refuses to recognize you as a full citizen?

A lot of people on both sides want it to be.

Who'd have ever expected to see gays and antigays rejoicing together?

MORE: Sean Kinsell also has a tough time seeing the Foley scandal as pedophilia, and offers perspective:

Flirtation from a powerful adult mentor, with recommendations and network access to offer or withhold, is not in the same category as flirtation from one's prom date.

And yet...and yet...calling this "child abuse" (as Malkin approves of) unsettles me. This is not an apologia for Foley, mind you; assuming things are as they appear, he's done nothing illegal, but he deserves a ruined reputation and an end to his political future. Yes, I know--I'm a childless gay guy who lives abroad and doesn't know what it's like for parents, et c. But it seems reasonable to expect people who are parents to know the difference between a Capitol Hill internship and church camp.

They should also know the individual adolescents they've been reading for a decade and a half. Washington is an exploitative place in many ways, including plenty that are non-sexual. A teenager who is still psychologically a child shouldn't be permitted to spend a semester there away from parental supervision.

Talking about what "the closet" does in the active voice--as if it were some kind of independent baleful force--can be rhetorically effective, but the flip side is that it makes closeted gays sound helpless and passive.

UPDATE: Here's outing practitioner Michael Rogers:

"Had Foley lived his life openly and been proud of who he is, this never would have happened."

MORE: Via PJM, Fausta has more on the outrageous double standard, while Bruce at Gay Patriot has a great post on the Gay GOP Witchhunt:

why have our national gay organizations (HRC, Log Cabin, NGLTF) not stepped in to stop this witchhunt which originated on the Gay Left in the first place? I think we know the answer. Tolerance and diversity of opinion is a one-way street for the Gay Liberals and their masters in the Democrat Party.

By the way, the only people that are advancing or talking "The List" that I've seen are Liberals! And that List was begun by Gay Leftists years ago.

This witchhunt has got to stop.

Plus Ace of Spades envisions conversion camps for non-comforming gays!

MORE: Masturgate!!!! Is that isn't the word of the day, I don't know what is. Gerard Vanderleun continues, with his thoughts on the obviously political nature of the conservatives-only outing campaign:

This may well be the reverse Monica of the new century; the first time that a remote hand-job has had a hand, so to speak, in bringing down a government.

At the same time, the rich and full aroma of deep irony revolves around what can only be seen as a Democratic initiated and driven effort to purge Congress at all levels of homosexuals because they are, well, Republicans or work for same. Coming from a party that is first and foremost about advancing gay and lesbian rights on all fronts, it seems especially shameful that -- to settle all their old scores and gripes and grievances -- they are going willing to sacrifice the lives, careers and reputations of their fellow Americans on the altar of their derangement.

My deepest thanks to Glenn. I'm honored to be in such company.

Welcome all new readers.

Here's Tom Maguire:

Does anyone seriously think that the Democrats can position themselves as the party of sexual restraint? The party that will be tough on gay men, straight men, or anyone else who gives off even a whiff of impropriety?

Please - this is not a bidding war the Democrats can win and I am reasonably certain that, after years of "sex is a private matter", it is not a war the Democrats want to start. That said, there is an election to be won, so for the next few weeks we will hear about sixteen and seventeen year old "children". And following the election, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will lead a crackdown on racy talk from and amongst Congressmen, their staffers, the interns, and the pages. Every rumor will be investigated promptly and thoroughly, and no PC will be left unseized. Whatever.

MORE: My thanks to Pajamas Media -- not only for linking this post but for putting it so well ("all the fixings of a shootout in a darkened saloon").

Be sure to check out the rest of the PJM roundup. (A word which seems to go with "saloon.")

UPDATE (10/07/06): Thanks to Mein BlogoVault for the link! But more important, read "Newly Discovered Liberal 'Principles'":

If you're a Democrat President, lying under oath about the affair you've been having with a nineteen year old intern isn't perjury and is in fact perfectly understandable; no harm, no foul, and anyone who seems at all concerned is to be dismissed as a "prude"

If you're a Republican Speaker of the House, failing to take action over salacious IM's you didn't even have knowledge of is grounds for dismissal and, hopefully, criminal proceedings

If you're a Democrat and homosexual, your sex life is perfectly normal and no one's business but your own, even if your young boyfriend is running a male prostitution ring from your apartment; your denials of any knowldege of said criminal activity will instantly be accepted without question, and in the end you'll be considered just another victim yourself

If you're a Republican and homosexual, your sex life (actually, your fantasy life) is "sick sick sick sick," and you'd best keep your junk locked away lest your private life be publicly mocked and denounced by tolerant, sensitive, caring liberals